Revolutionary Struggle and Liberal Brokerage

Published:Proletary, No. 3, June 9 (May 27), 1905.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Checked with the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 8,

      pages486-494.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Isidor LaskerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Therise of political parties is one of the most interesting and characteristic
features of our interesting epoch. The old order, the autocracy, is falling to
pieces. Increasing sections, not only of so-called “society”, i.e.,
the bourgeoisie, but also of the “people”, i.e., the working class
and the peasantry, have begun to reflect on the kind of new order that has to be
built and on the way to build it. For the class-conscious proletariat these
attempts of the various classes to frame a programme and organise the political
struggle are of momentous importance. Although these attempts largely originate
from individual “figures” responsible to no one and leading no one,
and are therefore often fortuitous, arbitrary, and at times bombastic, the
basic interests and tendencies of the big social classes, broadly speaking,
assert themselves with irresistible force. Out of the seeming chaos of
declarations, demands, and platforms there clearly emerge the political
physiognomy of our bourgeoisie and its real (not only specious) political
programme. The proletariat is obtaining increasingly more material by which to
judge how the Russian bourgeoisie, which now talks of political action, is
really going to act—what stand it will take in the decisive revolutionary
struggle towards which Russia is so rapidly heading.

Valuablematerial for studying the policy of the bourgeoisie is sometimes
offered byOsvobozhdeniye, published abroad, which is able to review
the numerous public utterances of the Russian liberals without censorship
restrictions. The Programme of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague, which thisjournal has just published (or reprinted fromNovosti[1]of April 5)
with instructive commentaries by Mr. P. S., is an excellent
addendum to the
resolutions of the Zemstvo congresses and to theOsvobozhdeniyeliberals’ draft constitution, of which we wrote inVperyod,

			       No. 18.[2]“The drafting and voting of this programme,” as
Mr. P. S. justly remarks,
“is a big step towards the creation of a Russian
Constitutional-Democratic Party.”

Forthe Russian liberals this is unquestionably a big step, which stands out in
the long list of liberal activities. Nevertheless, how little this big
“step” of the liberals is, as compared with what is needed for
building a real party, as compared even with what Social-Democracy has already
done to this end. The bourgeoisie has far greater freedom of legal expression
than the proletariat, incomparably more intellectual forces and financial means,
and far greater facilities for party organisation; yet we still have before us
a “party” without an official name, without a common, distinct, and
lucid programme, without worked-out tactics, without a party organisation, a
“party” which, according to the competent testimony of
Mr. P. S.,
consists of the “Zemstvo group"and theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague,i.e., of an unorganised conglomeration of individuals plus an
organisation. But perhaps the members of the Zemstvo group are “party
members” in the now famous sense that they accept the programme and work
“under the control of a party organisation”, of a group of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague? Such a conception of party membership is as
convenient and suitable to the liberals and as natural a part of the liberal
political pattern as it is alien to the whole spirit of Social-Democracy. Such a
conception of party (expressed not in written Rules, but in the actual structure
of that “party”) implies, among other things, that the organised members,
i.e., the members of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague, stand, in their
majority,for a unicameral system, while at the same time rejecting it
in their programme, passing the whole question over in silence in deference to
the unorganised membership, to the “Zemstvo group”, which favours a
bicameral system. The balance of“forces”, one might say, is providential for the politically active
      bourgeoisie. The organised intellectuals propose, and the unorganised
      businessmen, money-bags, and capitalists dispose.

Whileheartily welcoming the Programme of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague,
Mr. P. S.,in principle, defends both the vagueness, inadequacy, and
incompleteness of the programme and its organisational haziness and silence on
tactics— all for reasons of“Realpolitik”!We shall revert
to this in comparable conception, so singularly characteristic of the essence of
bourgeois liberalism, and shall now proceed to examine the basic principles of
the liberal programme.

Theparty, as we have said, has no official designation. Mr. P. S. calls it by
the name under which, I believe, it goes in the columns of our legal newspapers
of the liberal trend, namely, “Constitutional-Democratic
Party”. Unimportant though the question of name may appear at first
glance, here too we immediately find material that explains why the bourgeoisie,
unlike the proletariat,mustcontent itself with political vagueness
and even defend it “in principle”; it “must” do this,
not only on account of the subjective moods or qualities of its leaders, but by
reason of the objective conditions governing the existence of the bourgeois
class as a whole. The name “Constitutional-Democratic Party”
immediately calls to mind the well-known adage that speech was given to man in
order that he might conceal his thoughts. The name “G.D.P.” was invented
to conceal themonarchistnature of the party. Indeed, who does not
know that this entire party, in the person both of its master section, the
Zemstvo group, and of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague, stands for the
monarchy? Neither section so much as mentions the question of the republic,
which they consider “idle talk”, while their draft constitution
bluntly and unequivocally accepts the monarchy as the form of government. We
have therefore to do with a party that advocates a constitutional monarchy, a
party of constitutional monarchists. This is a fact of which there is not the
slightest doubt and which cannot be dismissed by any arguments about acceptance
“in principle” of the idea of a republic (though we have heard no
such arguments yet from the “Constitutional-Democrats”!), since the issue
is not acceptance of therepublic purely “in principle”, but acceptance in practical
politics, acceptance of the will to achieve the republic and of the necessity to
struggle for it.

Thefact is that the bourgeois gentlemencannotcall them selves by
their real name yet, any more than they can go out into the street naked. They
cannot tell the truth openly; they cannotaussprechen was ist(speak
out the truth), for that would mean admitting one of the most outrageous and
pernicious of political privileges, it would mean admitting their
anti-democratism. No bourgeoisie in struggle for political liberty can admit
this, and not only because it would be disgraceful, scandalous, and
indecent. Nothing is too in decent for bourgeois politicians where their
interests are concerned. But theirinterestsat the moment
demand liberty, and liberty cannot be wonwithout the people,
and the backing of
the people cannot be secured unless one calls oneself a “democrat”
(=an adherent of the rule of the people),unless one conceals one’s
monarchism.

Andso the class position of the bourgeoisie inevitably gives rise to an
inherent instability and falsity in the very formulation of its basic political
tasks. The struggle for freedom, for the abolition of the ancient privileges of
the autocracy, is incompatible with the defence of the privileges of private
property, since these privileges entail “gentle handling” of the
monarchy. The real programme of the monarchist constitution, therefore, is
draped in the fine, airy raiment of a democratic constitution. And this
embellishment of the programme’s real content with a display of tawdry tinsel is
called“Realpolitik”....Thus, the ideologist of the
liberal bourgeoisie speaks with inimitable contempt and sublime self-complacency
about the “theoretical self-indulgence” which the
“representatives of the extreme parties” are practising
(Osvobozhdeniye, No. 69-70, p. 308). TheRealpolitikerof
the bourgeoisie do not want to indulge in talk or even in day-dreams of the
republic because they do not want to struggle for the republic. For this
reason, however, they feel the irresistible urge toedifythe people
with the enticement of “democracy”. They do not want to deceive
themselves with regard to their inability to renounce the monarchy, and so they
needs must deceive the people by keeping silent about their monarchism.

Thename of a party, as can be seen, is not such an incidental and unimportant
      affair as one might think at first glance. Sometimes the very showiness
      and pretentiousness of the name betray the inherent flaw in a party’s
      entire programme and tactical line. The deeper an ideologist of the big
      bourgeoisie feels himself devoted to the monarchy, the louder he calls
      upon heaven to witness that he is a democrat. The more an ideologist of
      the petty bourgeoisie reflects its instability and its incapacity to wage
      a consistent, steadfast struggle for the democratic revolution and for
      socialism, the more ardently he holds forth on the party of the
      “Socialists-Revolutionaries”, of which it has been aptly said
      that its socialism is anything but revolutionary, and its
      revolutionariness anything but socialist.. All we need now is for the
      adherents of the autocracy to call themselves (as they have on more than
      one occasion attempted to do) “people’s party”, and we shall
      have a complete picture of the metamorphosis which class interests undergo
      on political signboards.

Thesignboard of the liberal bourgeoisie (or the programme of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague) starts, as befits a signboard, with a striking
preamble: “TheOsvobozhdeniyeLeague finds that the grave
external and internal crisis through which Russia is passing has become so acute
at the present time that the people must take its solution into their own hands
in conjunction with the other social groups opposed to the existing regime.”

Andso, let the power pass into the hands of the people, long live the autocracy
of the people in place of the autocracy of the tsar. Isn’t that it, gentlemen?
Isn’t that what democratism demands?

No,this is theoretical self-indulgence and a failure to understand practical
politics. All power is now in the hands of the absolute monarchy. Ranged against
it is the people, namely, the proletariat and the peasantry, who have launched
the struggle, are waging it furiously, and
...very likely will maintain their zeal until they have completely overthrown the
enemy. But ranged alongside the “people” are “the other social
groups”, viz., “society”, i.e., the bourgeoisie, the
landowners, the capitalists, and the professional intelligentsia. Thus, the
power is tobe divided into three equal parts. One-third is to be left to the monarchy,
another goes to the bourgeoisie (an Upper House based on indirect, and as far as
possible actually unequal and non-universal, suffrage), while the remaining
third goes to the people (a Lower House on the basis of suffrage that is
universal, etc.). This will be a “square deal” providing adequate
protection for private property and making it possible to use the organised
power of the monarchy (the army, bureaucracy, and police) against the people,
should they show “zeal” for any of the “unreasonable”
demands put forward by the “representatives of the extreme parties out of
sheer theoretical self-indulgence”. This square deal, which reduces the
revolutionary people to a harmless minority of one-third, is presented as
“a radical reform on democratic principles”, and not at all on the
principles of monarchism or of bourgeois privilege.

Howis this deal to be put through? By means of honest brokerage. Mr. Struve
predicted this long ago in his preface to the Witte Memorandum when he said that
it is always the moderate parties that gain from the intensification of the
struggle between the extreme parties. The struggle between the autocracy and the
revolutionary people is gaining in intensity. One has to manoeuvre between the
one and the other, enlisting the support of the revolutionary people against the
autocracy (with the enticement of “democracy”) and the support of the
monarchy against the “excesses” of the revolutionary people. By
skilful manoeuvring a deal like that should come off, with the bourgeoisie
getting at least a “third” share in any case, while the shares
allotted to the people and the autocracy would depend on the outcome of the
decisive struggle between them. Whose backing should be sought most will depend
on the exigencies of the moment— such is the essence of the huckstering
tactics, that is to say, “practical” politics.

Atpresent all power is still in the hands of the autocracy. The thing to do,
therefore, is to say that the people must take power into their hands. The thing
to do, therefore, is to call yourself a democrat, to put forward a demand for
“the immediate convocation of a Constituent Assembly on the basis of
suffrage that is universal, etc., for the purpose of drawing up a Russian
constitution”. The people noware unarmed, disunited, unorganised, and helpless in the face of the absolute
      monarchy. A popular Constituent Assembly will rally them and become a
      great force which will oppose the power of the tsar. Only then, when the
      power of the tsar and the united force of the revolutionary people
      confront each other, will the bourgeoisie have its day; then only will
    it be possible to “co-ordinate” these two
    forces with positive chances of success and ensure the most advantageous
    result for the propertied classes.

Suchis the plan of the practical politicians of liberalism. Not a foolish plan
at all. It deliberately provides for the preservation of the monarchy and the
admission of a Constituent Assembly of the whole people only alongside of the
monarchy. The bourgeoisie does not want to have the existing government
overthrown or the monarchy replaced by a republic. Therefore, the Russian
bourgeoisie (on the pattern of the German bourgeoisie of 1848) stands for a
“deal” between the people and the throne. Such a policy
can be successful only if neither of these parties engaged in the
struggle, neither the
people nor the throne, is able to win the day, only if their strength is
balanced. Then and only then will the bourgeoisie be able to join with the
monarchy and keep a tight hold on the people, compel them to put up with one
“third”—or perhaps one-hundredth part, of the power. The Constituent
Assembly of the whole people will be just strong enough to make the tsar grant a
constitution, but it will notand must not(from the point of view of
the bourgeoisie’s interests) be any stronger. It must only counterbalance the
monarchy, but not overthrow it; it must leave the material instruments of power
(the army, etc.) in the hands of the monarchy.

TheOsvobozhdeniyeLeaguers laugh at the Shipovists for wanting to give
the tsar the power of authority and the people the power of opinion. But is not
their position essentially identical with that of the Shipovists? They do not
want to give the peopleallthe power either; they, too, stand for acompromisebetween the power of the tsar and the opinion of the people!

Wethus see that the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class quite naturally and
inevitably lead it at the present revolutionary moment to advance the slogan of
a ConstituentAssembly of the people,but in no case the slogan of a provisional
revolutionary government.The first slogan is or has become the slogan of
the policy of compromise, huckstering, and brokerage; the second is the slogan
of revolutionary struggle. The first is the slogan of the monarchist
bourgeoisie, the second, the slogan of the revolutionary people. The
first slogan
makes it possible chiefly to preserve the monarchy, despite the revolutionary
onset of the people; the second offers the straight road to the republic. The
first leaves the power with the tsar, restricted only by public opinion; the
second is the only slogan which consistently and unreservedly leads to the
sovereignty of the people in the full sense of the word.

Onlythis radical difference in the political aims of the liberal bourgeoisie
and the revolutionary proletariat can explain a number of secondary features in
theOsvobozhdeniyeprogramme besides those mentioned above. Only in
the light of this difference is it possible to understand, for example, why theOsvobozhdeniyeadherentsrequirethe reservation that the
decisions of their League are to be “regarded asbindingonly
insofar as political conditions remain unchanged”, and that the programme
allows for “a provisional and conditional element”. This reservation
(developed at length and with keen “relish” in the commentaries of
Mr. P. S.) is absolutely essential for a party of “compromise”
between the people and tsarism. It is a reservation that makes it as clear as
daylight that in pursuance of their line of huckstering (“practical”)
politics theOsvobozhdeniyeLeaguers will throw over a good many of
their democratic demands. Their programme is not an expression of steadfast
convictions (a quality alien to the bourgeoisie), not some thing designated to
be fought for. Rather, their programme is simply ahaggling price,
fixed beforehand with a definite view to “reduction”, depending on
which of the warring parties can “hold out” longer.The
Constitutional-“Democratic” (read:
constitutional-monarchist)
bourgeoisie will strike a bargain with tsarism at a cheaper price than its
present programme—thereis no doubt of that, and the class-conscious
proletariat should have no illusions on that score. Hence Mr. P. S.’s hostility
towards the division into a minimum programme and a maximum programme, and
towards“firm decisions of programme in general”. Hence, his assurances that
      the programme of theOsvobozhdeniyeLeague (purposely couched,
    not in terms of definite demands precisely formulated, but in the form of a
    literary, approximativedescriptionof the demands)“is
      more than adequatefor a party engaged in practical
    politics”. Hence, the omission of any mention of the arming of the
    people in the programme of the monarchist “democrats”, the
    avoidance of any definitely formulated demand for the disestablishment of
    the Church, the insistence on the impracticability of abolishing indirect
    taxes, the substitution of cultural self-determination of the oppressed
    nationalities for their political self-determination. Hence, the naïvely
    frank admission that democracy and the interests of capital are linked
    together; that instead of “protection for enterprises and businessmen,
    there must be greater protection for the development of the productive
    forces of the people”; that “industrial prosperity”, etc.,
    must be promoted. hence, the reduction of the agrarian reform to the level
    of a purely bureaucratic “granting” of land to the peasants with
    an absolute guarantee that the landowners will be“compensated”for the lands assigned to the peas
    ants. In other words, the sanctity of “property” derived from
    bondage and serfdom is to be upheld at all costs. All this, we repeat, is
    the natural and inevitable result of. the position of the bourgeoisie as a
    class in modern society. All this confirms the radical difference between
    the proletarian policy of revolutionary struggle and the bourgeois policy of
    liberal brokerage.

[1]News.—Ed.

[2]See p. 427 of this volume.—Ed.